The Houston Chronicle has once again given space to Ed Hirs, who incorrectly attacked supply-side economics back in May, whichwe shared here. Today Hirs is using supply-side economics to attack the tax reform bills that will now be going to conference committee. Fair enough, but let’s not lie and make up our own facts along the way, Mr. Hirs. You will find today’s editorial by Hirs here.

Excerpts:

Reagan, originally a New Deal Democrat, knew the benefit of Keynesian tax cuts but expediently called it supply-side economics.

Ronald Reagan attended Eureka College before the New Deal was a thing and before Keynesian economics was a thing. He had been educated in real economics, not the type of economics that would take over in left-leaning academia for the decades to follow.

If we are to take a cue from Broadway, it should be from Horace Vandergelder in “Hello Dolly,” who famously said, “Money is like manure; it’s not worth a thing unless it’s spread around encouraging young things to grow.”

Absent that spread around, trickle down, the economics of tax cuts for the rich simply do not add up.

According to the report of one Kemp insider, Reagan, on the verge of his presidential campaign, came to seek Kemp’s endorsement. The Reagan campaign’s purpose was to prevent Kemp from entering the race too, splitting the conservative base. Jack Kemp offered his endorsement in return for Reagan’s endorsement of the Kemp-Roth 30% across-the-board tax rate cut.

That policy was controversial among both Republicans and Democrats. It was famously attacked by Reagan’s chief rival for the 1980 presidential nomination, George H.W. Bush, as “voodoo economic policy.” Reagan, on the advice of his then-top advisors, reportedly intended to check Kemp’s box, pocket Kemp’s endorsement, and never mention the tax rate cut again.

Until, that is, President Carter attacked Reagan’s endorsement of Kemp-Roth as irresponsible. Reagan rose to its defense. Carter doubled down. So did Reagan.